s overcast in Possilpark,
one of the most deprived areas of Glasgow. Outside the pound shops and
bookmakers on the high street, Barbara Harris, founder of US charity Project Prevention,
is giving out flyers. She hands one to James, a wiry man in his 20s.
"I'm from a nonprofit organisation," she tells him. "If you know any
drug addicts or alcoholics who could get pregnant, we will pay them £200
to be on long-term birth control."

His eyes widen. "Two hundred pounds! You don't get the money today, though, do you?"

"No, you don't get the money until after. Do you know any women who are pregnant and using drugs around here?"

"There
are hundreds of women like that around here." He gestures up the road.
"Go to the health centre – that's where you'll see them." Harris leaves
James studying the flyer. He's grinning, incredulous.

She asks to
leave flyers at the NHS health centre reception, but the manager is out,
so she's told she'll have to come back. She sticks a few in the
railings outside, and props four or five in the soil of a nearby
flowerbed. The flyers are hand-cut, on yellow card. There's a photo of a
tiny newborn covered in tubes above the slogan, "Every baby deserves a
sober start."

Harris doesn't think addicts should have children,
and her charity is using cash incentives to make sure they don't. In
the 12 years since Project Prevention launched in the US, she has paid
1,307 people $300 to be sterilised, and given money to many more in
exchange for long-term contraception. In total, Harris has bought the
fertility of more than 3,000 Americans with drug and alcohol problems – only 47 of them men. Now she's turning her attention to Britain.

"To
me, it's about preventing child abuse," she says. "This is legal child
abuse." Babies are being born in withdrawal, underweight, with serious
medical problems, she says, and if they survive, they are destined to a
bleak future. "What's the quality of life they're going to have? How
many problems are they going to have? The cycle will keep repeating
itself. But it's preventable. It's just common sense to me."

It
isn't common sense to everyone, though. It feels profoundly unsettling
to be walking around one of Britain's poorest districts with a woman
who's promising people serious money in exchange for their fertility. As
we leave the health centre, I think about how Harris's website says her
mission is "to reduce the number of substance-exposed births to zero".
If she managed to achieve that goal here, a lot of people in Possilpark
wouldn't be able to have children.

In the US, Project Prevention
has been compared to the Nazis' eugenics programme, but Harris isn't
bothered by her critics. "They are willing to call me Hitler, but what
are they doing to help? Are they willing to adopt any of these children
that they think should continue to be born? If they're not part of the
solution, they're part of the problem. Everybody talks about the right
of the woman – what about the rights of the children? They are the
victims."

Addicts who decide to take advantage of Harris's offer
call the project's hotline and leave their details. They are sent
paperwork to take to their doctor, who must verify their drug or alcohol
problem. Once they have been sterilised or had a long-term
contraceptive fitted, the doctor signs papers to confirm it. When
Project Prevention gets the papers back, the addicts get their money.
It's a lump sum for those who choose sterilisation; those who go for
less permanent birth control are paid in instalments, as long as they
can prove the contraceptive is still in place.

drug addicts should get no money what so ever! where i live, near Glasgow, Scotland, druggies get meth for free, alcoholics and people who cant be bothered to work whom are capable get money from the government. while children's hospitals, education, charities for people with learning/ physical disabilities, to get them a social life!! So that's a BIG no from me!! fs

Those money could have gone to poor children already born and forsaken by their parents. What's the point of trying to sterilize drug addicts when there are chances they might get sober up and start their own family? You would rather they have no chance at all?

okay say the sterilization was reversible ...what are the side effects that could happen to a future child?
and if its not reversible? then maybe a person who does clean up there act cant have children all because of a bad decision they made while under the influences....
BAD IDEA
maybe harry should hand out birth control methods like a shot, for money every month.

Sterilization is a dangerous operation on women, for one. And two, she is taking advantage/preying on a druggy's current lifestyle to deprive them of futures because of possible crimes that has yet to take place: aka Minority Report.

Sterilization isn't something that can be easily reversed, and it's not a concrete method of sterilization. This is going into the realms of providing subjective reasons for sterilization that can bring us down a very slippery slope, indeed. She is creating far more problems than someone doing nothing to solve the problem: the problem is based on an individuals choice, and has to be enforced by committed crimes, not possible ones. What's next, sterilizing poor people because a child will grow up in poverty?

I am torn on this because giving them money would just be supplying an addict basically But at the same time it would help prevent children being born prematurely and possibly having a lot of issues because of the drugs. The children could end up being neglected, abused, and/or end up using their self when they get older. So much could happen to a child with and addict parent(s) So I guess I lean more toward Yes then No

Poor drug addicts? Wow I'm really laughing at that statement! My father IS a crack head and has been my whole life. I haven't 1 clue what his phone number is half the time or even where he is at! I do not feel sorry for the addicts I feel sorry for the children involved! I am not dumb, I realize that non addict parents can do harm to their children as well I certainly never said that they couldn't. I also never said that ALL addicts would do something like harm their child But yes I do believe that an addict is more likely to. Congrats to you for getting clean but some people are not so lucky to get clean or even want to get clean.

I see where your coming from. I was popping pills and getting high, off of marijuana, and only stopped when I found out I was pregnant And I never started back again with any of it but I still see where the woman who is doing all of this is coming from After having an addict for a father I know how it can be, being left at random houses for days, not knowing where your father is or if he is even dead, I mean I could go on but I just wont. Like I said b4 some people are able to get clean but some are not I am truly torn about this because I see a little bit both sides

Sterilized pregnant women are forbidden for us, because otherwise attempt another child may not bring. This form is a powerful work, only for the rehabilitation of the project for employment. In addition it can be determined only when the person is during pregnancy that does not affect life changes to improve and the child does not want to live in the side poverty and therefore it is better to consult a doctor, never profit organization. The doctor has a chance to organize another, to gain space and the temptation to patients related to social cases. There's always the way is another alternative.

Hell no!!! Why should they get paid to be sterilized just so they can go out and get high some more. I know babies born on crack is a bad thing. But I would rather see the money go toward something else.

Yes, yes, yes! That would help a lot with the crack babies and other drug addicted children. Women who have kids like that should be neutered as a matter of course, and the men that got them that way. Or, we could just kill them. I have no problem with someone wanting to be a drug user or abuser, but they shouldn't bring children into the world.